Question, Why did Supreme court rule that immigrants trials need to be held in Texas? (or am i wrong about this)

[bluestarone]

So, if i'm right do ALL trials (no matter where you have been picked up by ICE) go to Texas?

[underpants]

1. Khalil went to Louisiana

I think it has to do with where immigration courts are located but I could be wrong

[Raven123]

2. Venue.

They want the trial in the court where the issue arose.

[bluestarone]

3. So, if ICE kidnapps you in New York, your hearing will be in Texas?

No matter what? Just trying to understand this for sure.

[dsc]

5. Only if they move you there before you can get to court

[Raven123]

11. I don't think that is what was said.

I think they want the trial in the federal jurisdiction where the apprehension occurred

[dsc]

4. what the court ruled is that there has to be habeus corpus cases and not class action suits

and those have to be heard within the jurisdiction where the prisoner is. That is why ICE bussed the prisoners to north Texas from south Texas and tried to ship them from there.

[bluestarone]

6. TY, so that is for Texas immigrants only?

Moving them to Texas from another state isn't allowed?

[dsc]

7. I think before a judge gets involved they can move them at will

the ones at issues now certainly can't be deported I don't know if they can be moved out of that part of Texas.

[bluestarone]

8. Would be nice if the Supreme court would have ruled that immigrants CANNOT be moved to any state other than the one they

Were detained by ICE. That's the correct ruling. It would have stopped all the bullshit happening today.

[dsc]

9. yeah that would be great

I am not sure courts can rule that. A class action would be preferable.

[IbogaProject]

10. That rulling was for a specific cohort of detainees

I'm not sure it was more broadly applicable other than stating in plain English there has to be some kind of hearing in front of a judge at the very least.